YankeeDog

Well, Zitadelle and I have had an interesting one so far. . . only into turn 4 right now, and I don't want to give anything away, but there's at least one incident so far that I think will pop a few eyeballs, even among the more experienced members of this board. :eek: I'll be interested to get some of the oldtimers' perspective on it. . . I'll post details as soon as everyone is done with battle 1. . .

OK, first things first - a new keyboard will cost you $40, tops. If you can afford this game, you can afford a new keyboard. Your posts are annoying to read and I'm not going to bother to try to figure out the details of what you're trying to say. Since the gist of what you seem to be trying to say is that you think there is a problem with your CM CD, I am happy to inform you that if you REALLY have a problem with your CD, I am sure BTS will be happy to send you a new one, free of charge. They did for me - mine was bent nearly in half when the mailman tried to jam the package into my overfull mailbox. I am equally sure that Madmatt (who handles these kinds of things at BTS) will not even bother to read more than two words of your compliant email if you can't figure out a way to type it using the full 26 letters of the modern english alphabet, and some punctuation marks for good measure.

Brewmeister - Please post what you decide to do, and the outcome if possible. I'm curious.

Wow. You're doing force allocation and everything. . . This is definitely a full-service establishment. Do I get a free tournament patch with my entry fee, too?? Your solution to eliminate (or at least mitigate) gaminess is simple and therefore elegant. You da man. If you're ever in NYC, I'll buy you a beer (this is about all the bribe I can afford. . .).

I'm in - sent my email already. Setting up two tournaments to keep things competitive sounds like a good idea to me. Just have to rely on people to be honest about their experience. . . Another thought - probably best to set very clear rules about 'gaminess' & c. - many of use newbies don't have as much knowledge about realistic force distributions & c. as some of you old-timers. Thanks for being facilitator. YD

I can confirm - one sharpshoter 'shot' (i.e., the usage of one ammo 'point') can take out more than one man - seen it happen, watched the movie half a dozen times to make sure what I was seeing was what I thought it was. As metioned above, I guess it goes to that whole small arms ammo count being an abstration thing. . .

Just confirmation of all of the above. There is a thread around here somewhere on this subject. I did a couple of quick searches, but couldn't find it. As I recall, the justification behind not limiting the number of grenades in CMBO was that a 10-man squad, for example, would have about 2 grenades per soldier - giving it a total of 20 grenades, and the likelihood of the squad actually having the opportunity to throw that many grenades over the course of a CM battle is pretty slim. In my experience, it is rare for a squad to get the opportunity to throw more than 5 or 6 in a battle - close combat chews up squads pretty quickly. I guess BTS just felt like there was other places they should be spending their programming time. . . Obviously, this model is not perfect. There are certainly situations that could come up where a squad, especially the smaller german 8-man squads, or a depeleted squad already down a few men, could run out of grenades. I'd also be curious to see concrete evidence on how many grenades squads from different armies actually carried into combat - for example, did a late-war 8-man panzergrenadier squad, among the squad carrying two Pz 100s AND all that ammo for the MG42 also manage to carry 2 grenades per person?? I suspect the actual number of grenades carried into combat would be very hard to quantify, though. I don't think reading any standard equipment list is going to tell you much the whole story. In the real McCoy, like ammunition and secondary firearms, soldiers from all sides probably carried as much as they could scrounge, beg, borrow, or steal. I've read a lot of anecdotal evidence that weapons from the 'other side' were highly sought after for more than just souveniers - German Potato Masher grenades were better for close range usage (smaller shrapnel pattern), but american grenades' larger danger zone had a it's advantages, too, so each side coveted what the other had. . . I, too noted the grenade-like icons on some of the preview shots from CMBB. I haven't read anything about grenades yet in the 'official' updates on CMBB here on this forum, though. I wonder if this also means we'll see different kinds of grenades?? I would be hard to imagine the East Front, especially the early years, without Molotov Cocktails, which are really just an improvised incendiary grenade. . .

Also important to note that the information contained in the Info/Kills screen only shows kills that the unit is pretty sure it got. This number can be much lower than the actual number of kills caused - especially for long range/indirect fire units that are less likely to be able to see the consequences of their actions. Oh, and welcome to CM. Enjoy. You didn't miss anything with those 'other' strategy games. . .

It should be noted, just for accuracy, that infantry with no special AT weaponry (i.e., just small arms and grenades) always has a *very small* chance of killing an AFV if they can get close enough. I think this is supposed to model the chance that someone in the squad will pull a Rambo, climb up on the tank and manage to stuff a grenade into a vision slit or something. I've seen it happen once, and that was just a Pz IV. I wouldn't reccommend using this tactic, though - It'll probably just get a whole bunch of your infantry units broken and/or killed.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: Why would a tank stop moving because a guy hit the mg with an axe? Yeah, that makes sense. <hr></blockquote> Oh, I got that one: the TC was aiming the MG for another burst just as the axe hit the barrel. The sudden violent movement of the barrel downward from the force of the blow causes the receiver and stock part of the MG on the other side of the fulcrum to suddenly swing upward inside the turret, striking the TC in the face and KOing him. The driver of the Pz I, being basically blind without the TC to guide him, cowered inside the hull until forcibly removed by Russian Infantry. I am going to ask for my money back if the 'MG axe strike trap' of the Pz I and similar designs is not modelled in CM:BB.

I wasn't aware that you couldn't but if you ask me you SHOULD be able to target sound contacts - but targeting sound contacts should be treated the same as when you target something that is out of the targeting unit's LOS. Say you had a Tank Sounds contact coming from just behind a rise, and an AT gun position to cover the crest. This would allow you to 'target' the sound contact so the gun would be on the lookout for a tank cresting the rise somewhere around where the sound is coming from, giving the gun a slightly faster 1st shot when the tank crests the ridge. I dunno. Just a thought.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Bad Monkey!: Perhaps what is needed then is a "Target and Hold Fire" command (along with a corresponding "Commence Fire" command), to let you target an area without actually firing?<hr></blockquote> Based on what I've read (Sadly, I have no actual experience controlling fire from large guns ) is that this would probably be a more accurate way of modeling things. I imagine there are other improvements that could be made, too - such as the ability to target 'rolling barrages' that move in front of an advance at approximately a walking pace - I know that these were actually used, though I'm not sure at what scale. These are probably not tops on my list of improvements I'd like to see in future CMs, though. To me, the existing Arty system, while certainly not perfect, works pretty well. For example, I'd really like there to be some sort of 'assault building' command that would have a squad toss hand grenades into the windows of a building before entering it to make sure there aren't any ambushers inside before I get my 'rolling barrage' command. . .

As most things, I suppose it depends somewhat on how much it is used, but I don't necessarily see the tactic of "pre-targeting" OB Arty, and then cancelling the order or letting it go through, as 'gamey'. To me this seems to be parallel to a battlefield commander making an educated guess based on terrain and perhaps limited contact as to where the enemy might be concentrating, or about to concentrate, and giving his arty the 'heads up' that they might be needed soon.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SS Peiper: Hey Yankee Dog, Dan Lamb I grow up around there use to live on 111th st between Amsterdam and Broadway. How's the West End bar like these days? I use to hang out there in the mid to late 70's. Did any of you guys grow up around there? SS Peiper [ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: SS Peiper ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, I moved to the city about 6 years ago after I finished college - I first moved into Washington Heights, then to W. 93rd St. for a while. Been where I am now for about 6 months. Still getting to know the hood - I'll have to go check out the West End bar and tell you what I think. I'd like to stay around here if I can - If I can find a good place in the hood to buy, I will.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dan Lamb: Yo Yankee Dog... Uptown Local is in the house! I'm on 110th betwixt Amsterdam and Broadway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Damn, I've probably rubbed shoulders with you on the street!! I'm on the corner of Amsterdam and 109th. Probably won't be here for to much longer, tho - i'm looking to buy a place (take advantage of those low interest rates while I can. . .). Anyway, this Belgian castle place sounds good to me - I'm all about good, strong beer. I'd probably be there earlier rather than late - Friday night the G-friend usually locks up most of my time pretty good. . Yeah, I'm whipped. I can sneak out for a couple, tho.

I'd dig getting a chance to meet some fellow CMers myself. I'm up on 109th near Columbia myself, but anywhere on Manhattan is good for me. . . Any half decent bar on a friday night is going to be PACKED, unless someone has connections somewhere and can get us a back room. . . I, alas, am not one of those people with connections.

I do this alot, but I'm still a learning player. I do revert to a previously saved turn to 'change history' if I really do something stupid and I want to figure out how to correct it, but more often, I use a saved turn to see how lucky/unlucky I've been. I just reload the turn and have CM run it again with exactly the same orders. Of course, the computer doesn't always issue the same orders, but usually they're pretty similar. This way, I get a better idea of when I'm being smart, and when I'm just getting lucky. . .

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dirtweasle: I think I recall that in the CMBB (CMBB-II ??) there is going to be a moral factor for tanks. In which case banging away at them with mortars ought to be a common thing. Now however, the pay-off is rather slim when gong after the big boys. If I am shy of sharpshooters, or they are to far off to use, mortars are good for buttoning up tanks. I can't say I recall killing any with the light mortars though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah. The whole crew morale factor may well change things - especially if the Tank Crew is inexperienced, just bouncing alot of shells off of it might convince them to abandon, or at least bug out of the area...

Because I have no life, I did some tests - 5 Regular 2" Mortars w/max HE load (30) behind some large buildings with a platoon leader in one of the buildings as a spotter; a Pz IV, a Panther, and a Tiger about 375m away, all without ammo. Tell the mortars to open fire in one of the tanks, and see what happens. Run the test three times, once on each tank: Pz. IV - 9 top hits, no damage. Panther - 8 top hits, no damage. Tiger - 10 top hits, no damage. The only thing that surprises me about these results is that, of 450 total rounds fired, there wasn't one lucky track immobilization hit somewhere among them. Those of you who got tank kills with 2" mortars, you got REALLY lucky. There was one little thing that I hadn't noticed before - some of the shell holes were directly under the tanks, where they could not possibly have landed. I guess this is one of those "what you see in the playback is not exactly what happens in the model" things... Cheers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No no, mortar fire on tanks is a perfectly sound tactic. I've read many-a "historical account" of mortar teams scoring penetration after penetration on Tiger tanks, and this was through the frontal plating !(yes, ahem) In fact, I thourougly encourage purchasing ONLY mortar teams in ANY given situation as mortar teams are a counter to any unit, ever. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really?! :eek: Cool. I've finally discovered the secret to CM strategy. Talk about the ultimate gamey unit!! They're cheap, too!! This is better than a cheat code on a Nintendo game. Anybody up for a QB?? Now I'm going to kick butt. . . <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Seriously, I use the little 2" sometimes to button a heavy tank so my Piats can cream it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, good tactic. . . Mebbe the AI hadn't positively IDed the Tiger yet, so it didn't know it was already buttoned. . . I wish there was a way to switch sides in the middle of a game. . . it would be a great learning tool.

I was playing the Villers Bocage scenario again today against the AI for kicks (I felt like causing some mayhem ), and the AT (playing the Brits) did something I've never seen before. In the early turns, the Brit 2" mortar started shelling my Tiger Tank!! The tank was already buttoned, so it had no chance of killing the TC. I watched the turn several times from different angles, and there is no doubt about it - the little mortar even manages to score a couple of direct hits on the deck of the tank - not that they caused any real damage. This struck me as odd. The AI in CM is much better than the AI in any other wargame I have played, but it's still no Napoleon. Nevertheless, haven't seen it waste ammo in this fashion before. Aside from a really lucky immobilization hit, I really don't think that a 2" mortar shell would have any chance against even the relatively thin armor on the deck of a tank. What's more, it was early in the game - more lucrative targets for the mortar could turn up later on, at which point it would already have fired of most of its ammo on a target it had little chance of hurting. Has anybody else ever encountered anything like this?? Or am I missing something - is there a legitimate reason to shell a buttoned tank with a light mortar?? I suppose, IRL, the concussion from the mortar blasts might at least distract and rattle the crew and make the gunner less accurate, etc. Does CM model this effect?? I wonder. . .

Lord Dragon, welcome from another newbie. I'm about 2 months into the game at this point so I'm no grog, but maybe I can give some helpful responses. . . You already mentioned one of the best uses for motorized infantry in your post - Having a mobile reserve that can be shuttled off to any part of the battlefield quickly is indeed useful. In theory, by the time you deploy this reserve, you should have a pretty good idea of where enemy ATGs and AFVs are, so you should be able to keep the risk to the vehicles limited - usually. A good opponent will keep a light ATG or AC hidden and ruin your well planned endgame. A great tactic, though - not only does your infantry get there faster, it also isn't as tired. The usefulness of this tactic is best demonstrated on a large map where you need to make a long advance - like the 'Fire & Maneuver' training scenario included on the CD. Another related tactic is using the HTs to shuttle around HMGs, on-board mortars, and IAT teams - these teams are relatively slow moving and/or tire easily, so giving them some wheels can really help them keep up with the advance. I find this especially useful with IAT teams - their limited range means that they have to get close to enemy AFVs to be effective, so being able to move them around quickly to set up ambushes along anticipated lines of advance is useful. I almost never expose a HT loaded with infantry to enemy fire other than small arms unless I have a REALLY good reason for doing it - as you mentioned, if the HT gets taken out, there's a good chance the squad will take casualties from the knock out round, and then they're usually stuck in the open under fire. Another note - watch out for mortar or artillery fire on open-topped HTs - they're very vulnerable to it. I don't think that the HTs are totally worthless once they've disembarked their troops, though. You just have to be even more careful than you would with a more rugged AFV. Especially in the endgame, when most of the heavy AFVs and ATGs are gone or at least exposed so you can avoid them, an extra mobile MG can come in very handy. Just make sure to keep them out of shreck/zook range, and their light armor will usually keep them pretty safe. In my experience, Axis HTs are slightly more vulnerable that the allied ones. This has nothing to do with the HTs themselves, but rather the existence of the allied .50cal MG - does quite a job on thin-skinned HTs, especially from the side or rear! There is one more tactic that the empty HTs can be used for, but I'm a little reluctant to mention it. . . HTs can be used to 'scout' ahead of more valuable assets (heavier AFVs) to draw fire and locate enemy AT assets. Many people consider this 'gamey'. To me, that all a matter of how this tactic is used. Popping a HT briefly over a ridge to see what it can see and then popping it back down I don't feel is very gamey. Driving a column of three of them at top speed down a road to distract and draw fire while your tanks crest a ridge to pop any ATGs that show themselves is probably very unrealistic IRL terms. In any event, HTs are faster than heavier AFVs, and losing one is less of a catastrophe than an expensive tank, so sometimes it seems appropriate to take a little more risk with them. My knowledge about actual military doctrine is a little limited, so this part of your query is probably better answered by others, but I have read some about the German Panzergrenadier units - basically, the whole idea was to have infantry that could keep up with the tanks, to counter threats to tanks like IAT, ATGs, etc. so tanks could better exploit breakthroughs. This is, IMHO, well demonstrated in CM - I find a tank completely without infantry support to be almost blind - sooner or later it stumbles onto a zook or something. . . Cheers, YankeeDog

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I haven't tried getting my spotter forward and using direct fire against the 88s. Would this be worthwhile? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I assume by 'direct fire' you mean 'observed fire' - direct fire would be fire from an on-board weapon with direct LOS to the enemy unit. But in a nutshell, yes. This is the most effective tactic against ATGs/IGs in my experience. Haven't played this operation yet, so I can't offer you specific advice about it, but in my experience the best thing against hidden AT guns is mortars, either on-board or off. Remember, an 81mm FO is two guys - it's a hard unit for the enemy to spot, so once you have a good idea where a gun is, you should be able to get the FO to an LOS spot without too much risk, and a 1500m LOS for an artillery spotter is as good as a 500m one - if there is high ground well behind the line of contact on your side of the map, this can be extremely useful. From that point on, the gun is a sitting duck. It rarely takes me more than a turn or so of shelling to at least get the crew to abandon the gun. Another important note is that if you can't quite get LOS to the gun with your spotter, if you can get LOS to within 20m or so if it, this is just as good - the shell dispersal pattern will take care of the rest. I never use 'Target Wide' when targeting guns - the dispersal of the regular 'Target' command is enough. On-board mortars can work in a similar fashion, except that if they have LOS to the gun, the gun will generally have LOS to them, so it's better to use a platoon leader to spot for them and leave them just behind a hill crest or whatever. A little note on getting the guns to reveal themselves in the first place - playing peek-a-boo (i.e., Tophat-and-Lowsky, or just scooting from cover to cover) with a fast AFV (such as Greyhounds or Stuarts) is a good tactic in my experience. It works even better if you can get some infantry in good observation spots with LOS to likely gun locations - the infantry have a much better chance of spotting the gun than the 'bait' - who are bouncing around in a fast moving vehicle scared out of their minds. . . Happy gun-hunting.

I agree that being on top of a hostile AFV isn't a rosy place for infantry to be. My main point was that being on top of it might be somewhat better than being, say, 15 meters away (assuming you're exposing yourself to assault said vehicle and not hiding, of course). Of course a tank able to move with any speed at all would be virtually impossible to assault in this fashion, even if the infantry managed to sneak up and climb aboard while the tank was standing still. I do stunt work in film and television and I am well aware of how difficult it is to ride on the exterior of a moving vehicle even on a nice, smooth asphalt surface. I am sure staying on the deck a tank moving cross-country while trying to avoid coming into the line of fire of the coax MG, getting swept off the deck by the barrel of the main gun, or getting your foot chewed into hamburger by the tracks and at the same time stuffing a grenade into some handy orifice would be a feat for the Medal of Honor if ever there was one. However, in situations where the tank was immobilized or close to immobilized with a speed less than 3-4mph, such as when climbing a steep slope, partially bogged, or negotiating very rough terrain, I think infantry would have a good chance of staying on the tank if they managed to somehow get there. against someone this close to the tank, the coaxial MG would be worthless, because a human crouching a few feet from the tank would be shielded by the body of the tank itself from the MG's line of fire. I have a question about the whole 'rotating barrel breaking bones' thing. This website URL=http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm]here lists the maximum turret slew rate on a Tiger I as 360 degrees in 60 sec. This doesn't strike me as fast enough to break bones at all. I know that Tiger Is have a rather slow turret compared to other tanks, but turret slew rate would have to be alot faster than 6deg/sec to be able to cause a serious blunt force injury. . . Is the website wrong?? Again, not arguing that close assaulting a Tank with only small arms and a few hand grenades wouldn't suck. Just arguing that maybe the squad right on top of the tank might have a bit better odds than the squad 15 meters away - IRL, anyway. Like I said, I have no idea whether CM models this, and I can think of no really efficient way of testing it. . . RMC - thanks for the reply on the nahverteidigungswaffe - this gives me a much better idea of what the weapon was and how effective it was. Cheers

Would the nahverteidigungswaffe have a minimum range?? I'm no expert on them, but I've heard them described as a small, low velocity mortar. This makes me think that while they might be able to be aimed at infantry near the tank, infantry actually on the tank might be immune, depending on the range of travel of the aiming mechanism (after all, if the weapon could be aimed straight up, the projectile would drop back down onto the tank, which would kill mounted infantry, but even the thin top armor would be protection for the crew against a small anti-personnel charge). Does CM actually model a SPR-style close assault where the infantry is actually climbing on the tank?? In other words, does the chance of a close assault (for a unit without satchels, fausts, or rife grenades) succeeding go up when the assuaulting infantry goes from being very near (say within 20M or so) to actually being on top of the tank?? I don't really know, but I suspect not. Obviously, the tank would have to be moving very slowly or not at all for this to happen, but rough terrain does at times slow AFVs to walking speed or less. I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a statement without any actual evidence: It seems to me pretty obvious that infantry that actually managed to get onto, or right next to a tank in a close assault would (1) have a much higher chance of survival, as return fire from the tank crew would be limited to small arms and hand grenades through view ports unless the assaulting infantry was really stupid and stood in front of one of the MGs, and (2) would have a much improved chance of at least causing serious damage to the tank - heck, even just stuffing a hunk of wet cloth into the exhaust mufflers would stall out the motor from excess back pressure, and as mentioned above, I'm sure whacking the crap out of the barrel of an MG34 with a rifle butt does wonders for its accuracy. Of course, it would take infantry with cool heads and lots of balls to actally pull of an assault like this. Not to mention a really stupid OPFOR commander to leave his AFV hung out to dry... I should mention that, IMHO, this is not high on the priority list of 'fixes' for future versions of CM. I find it pretty rare that I get infantry within spitting distance of any hostile vehicle, even when playing against the AI. Would it be nice if CM modeled a 'pigpile' style infantry close assault in situations where it would be appropriate?? Yes. There's just lots of other things I'd like to see first. Interesting discussion, though. Got me thinking about what exactly one does if one is sitting on the back of an enemy tank with no explosives. Maybe a can opener would help?? :confused: